The eighth decade of 20th century marks the years of initiation of strategic offensive of World Proletarian Revolution. The most powerful revolutionary proletarian tide in that decade, belonged to the revolutionary masses of Peru led by Communist Party of Peru, and the Great Leadership of Chairman Gonzalo could lead the Protracted People’s war in Peru, creatively.

Indeed, it was Communist Party of Peru, led by Chairman Gonzalo who introduced Marxism-Leninism-Maoist, as a New, Higher and Third stage in development of proletarian ideology.

This was Chairman Gonzalo who said: Today, to be a Marxist means to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist. He added that MLM will eventually triumph, and as a continuation of Marxism-Leninism, will be adopted by all Communist Organizations. His genius and almighty scientific prediction was proved to be correct, and gradually, all revolutionary forces around the world, focus on his contributions and his scientific formulation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. He had already announced that GPCR was the tide which had given birth to Maoism as a New, Higher and Third stage in Marxism.

The RCP-USA, at first disagreed with PCP’s formulation, but later on, this party also declared that it is Marxism-Leninism-Maoist which presents the highest development in proletarian ideology.

The formation of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) however was a positive initiative toward a world embryonic center for a future ICM, but, it failed to recognize MLM, and still was insisting on Mao-Tse-Tung Thought rather than Maoism. By the year 1993, with about a decade of delay, finally RIM also recognized MLM as a guide to world proletarian revolution. It was a great step and a great leap forward. But, still many serious problems had remained unsolved. The recognition of MLM by most of the members of RIM was uneven, and was different in degree. There were still organizations and parties who only formally had adopted MLM and had challenged the universal contributions of MLM. As PCP had claimed, at first, it was the only force who argued the universal character of Protracted People’s War.

It was this party which had brought the ICM out of the Lin Biao-ist confusions concerning the Theory of The Era. But still a handful of Organizations inside and outside the RIM were bound with the problem of the Theory of The Era. Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) the then Famous to Mashal- was one of the forces which opposed the formulation of MLM inside the RIM, and then was driven out of the RIM. That party was finally proven as a revisionist clique. Indeed, most of the organizations and parties whom still were insisting to be called Marxist-Leninist or MaoTse-Tung Thought, were proved being opportunist in the coming years. RIM, functioned as a filter for purification of the ICM to a great extent, in ideology, and in practice. This was the most positive aspect of it during the second half of the eighth decade of 20th century, and during the first half of ninth decade.

The most negative aspect of the RIM, which was originated from its initial steps, was lack of an integrated recognition of Maoism. RIM to a large extent, had formally adopted Maoism, and still had many steps to go forward. This was the reason why Chairman Gonzalo had argued that: PCP is functioning as a red fraction within RIM in order to uphold, defend and apply Maoism internationally.

The RCP-USA was instrumental to this negative aspect of RIM. Chairman Gonzalo’s contributions were almost neglected by RCP-USA. Instead, RCP-USA, claiming to be the initiator of RIM, spread its hegemony within the RIM. Gradually, it was RCP-USA, and mainly, Bob Avakian, the Chairman of RCP-USA’s stand, which dominated the RIM. He presented a version of Maoism, far from what Chairman Mao said, and what Chairman Gonzalo contributed to Mao’s thought. Avakian labeled his positions as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism within RCP-USA and towards RIM, chanting Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The Resolution passed by RIM, calling Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, was an international victory, but, the opportunist dominant clique leading RIM conducted a conspiracy stand against Chairman Gonzalo, and against recognition of Maoism, as a synthesis.

Mechanical recognition of MLM by RCP-USA and some of other RIM members, who were tailing Bob Avakian, led toward taking opportunist position on MLM and Chairman Gonzalo’s Powerful Thought, A thought, which was the concrete application of universal truth of MLM in Peruvian society. Avakian-Co called Chairman Gonzalo as dogmatist and they plotted the sectarianism of PCP.

RCP-USA and Co failed to know that: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, is a synthesis. Some of the pro-Avakianists concluded that: it was a deviationist line adopted by PCP under leader ship of a dogmatist, The Gonzalo. Even some of the opportunist linings called it Post-Maoism. Why did the Avakianists and the rest of the opportunists failed to understand Maoism and chairman Gonzalo’s contributions? Because, as we previously mentioned, the opportunists did not understand the dialectical development of the ideology of the proletariat, and did not consider it dialectically, and as a synthesis. Instead, they thought that: it is possible to mechanically replace Mao-Tse-Tung Thought expression with Maoism, and then, we are all Maoists!

We cannot call RCP-USA and other opportunists’ stand on Maoism as erroneous one. Their opportunism was a deviationist line, which was finally incarnated in Bob Avakian’s so called “New Synthesis” in 2008.

Chairman Gonzalo had scientifically explained the generation of a revolutionary thought within each country, as a guiding thought of revolution, and as an application of Maoism to the concrete conditions of each country. One of the latest contributions of CPMLM France expresses Chairman Gonzalo’s contribution of Guiding Thought: Gonzalo’s Teachings: From Thought to People’s War. If there is no guiding thought, if there would be no guiding thought, paving the way toward application of universal truth of Maoism to the concrete condition of each country, then, the result will be an Armed Revisionism, and not Maoism. This is the case in Left Opportunist Line in Peru. This was the matter in Nepal which was incarnated in Nepalese Revisionism which was called “the Prachanda Path”.

Today, PCP and CPMLM France, correctly argue that: Communist Party of India (Maoist) is developing an abstract “Maoism” which develops no guiding thought.

According to our knowledge, if ever the Indian Maoists fail to generate a guiding thought, then, the problem of construction of new power, the problem of smashing the old state and formation of new state, will remain unsolved. Then, instead of developing new power, the Indian revolution will pave the way toward an armed revisionism, a guerrilla ware fare, not able of applying Maoism.

To utilize Maoism in an abstract manner is to struggle for nothing more than an old bourgeois-comprador society, similar to those in Nepal in 2006 onwards.

The so called “Prachanda Path” which is an obvious declaration of failure of armed revisionism in Nepalese Revolution, once had claimed Socialism suitable for Twenty First Century. This “path” had argued a universal contribution to Maoism. But, when the Nepalese revolution was about to triumph, and the PPW in Nepal entered the strategic offensive, in favor of the oppressed masses, after the defeat of Monarchy, a two lines struggle was needed. It was the correct time to oppose Prachandism and Prachanda-Bhattrai’s Scenario of joining the CA and involving in Parliamentary Road. The Nepali Maoists gave up, and tailed Prachanda-Bhattrai’s clique, and surrendered to imperialism and its running dogs.

The defeat of revolution in Nepal, explained itself in “Stagism” of Nepalese revolution. Misfortunately, most of the cadres opposing Prachanda, still had argued in favor of the so called “Model of Fusion/theory of fusion”. The fusionist theory was no more than a “modest” rejection of the universality of People’s War, and it was recognition of an eclectic understanding which does not believe in integration of People’s war, as a strategy for World Proletarian Revolution.

Those parties and Organizations, who tailed Nepalese “Maoism” and sided them ideologically and practically, still are sabotaging the process of formation of an international Maoist Center. This sabotage is presented by their opportunist positions taking in favor of parliamentary cretinism and a Multi-Party system.

There is still a number of Organizations, whom were Pro-Prachandists, but right now, however rejecting Prachandism and Prachanda path, still are not confirming the red line of proletarian revolution, still are not in position of confirmation of universality of PPW. So, we can say that: Prachandist revisionist however uncovered and rejected by a significant portion of ICM, still sabotages and still presents opportunist linings.

But, it is Avakian’s rotten “New Synthesis” which argues for Post-Maoism, however not confessing strictly.

The RCP-USA, in her so called “New Manifesto” and “New Synthesis” has argued for a “New beginning” and a post-Maoist foundation, but RCP-USA and Avakianism, was also uncovered, and their betrayal was introduced, in a hard two-line struggle in a world scale. This resulted isolation for RCP-USA and Avakainsm. Nowadays, post-Maoism RCP-USA, which is cordially accompanied by Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), attempts to get rid of the isolation created by their “New Manifesto”, and is willing to liberate herself and her companions from the “golden cage” made by them. RCP-USA, in her last letter to C(M)PA, has argued that they are in continuation of Chairman Mao’s contribution to International Ideology of the Proletariat. We question them (as C(M)PA has also questioned them): If a continuation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is in order and if your “New Synthesis” is not a post-Maoism, then how have you adopted such post-Maoism in your “Manisfesto” and your documents during last four years?

We sure are that: the opportunist stands of RCP-USA, and especially their Fox-Tactics of current reopening of the debates with former members of RIM, is only an attempt by RCP-USA for the sake of getting rid of the isolation, and for the sake of continuing their best to spread their opportunism more than before. Avakianists know that the ICM, except the opportunists whom are falsely claiming to be Maoist, are not tolerating Post-Maoist deviationist line of RCP-USA and Co. So, now, they are shamelessly trying to play with words, and decrease their temper of Post-Maoism with new tricks and new ideological plots.

The current situation in ICM within the anti-revisionist positions:

Anti-revisionist forces which oppose both Prachanda Path and Post-Maoism of Avakain-Co, are not an integrated and coordinated body.

A large section of the anti-revisionist forces, however rejecting RCP-USA and the so called “New Synthesis”, still are inheriting the pro-Avakianist (Avakianism of pre-New Synthesis) position on behalf of Maoism without concrete application, Maoism with no guiding thought, with no struggling for the conquest of power. Why this kind of anti-revisionism does prevails? Is it in essence an anti-revisionist force?

This trend exists because, historically, this trend arises from an Avakianite tradition, opposing chairman Gonzalo and the synthesis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism. Such anti-revisionism is far from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Because, it cannot still understand that: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism is a synthesis.

This is a trend which does not understand and so, does not recognize the application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the concrete conditions of each country. It calls for Maoism in general, Maoism in abstract form. The black shadow of Avakianite anti-Maoism still prevails over this trend. C (M) PA one of the representatives of this trend, in her documents, still considers the Gonzalo Thought, a deviation from Maoism! Communist Party of India (Maoist) is the leading authority of this trend, which by being in authority of waging a people’s war, gives inspiration for this trend. But, the facts speak. All knows that in spite of sacrifices the masses give, and despite heroic efforts of Indian Maoists, there is no new power established, and naturally, there is no perspective for a successful transition to proletarian power. One of the black aspects of such abstract “Maoism” is the question of application of violence. Chairman of Communist Party of Indai, Ganapathy, has declared in his interview that: they adhere to revolutionary violence, while in defense. He claims that, if ever there is a possibility of peaceful struggle, then they will move toward peaceful instruments.

Our organization had already condemned such passive stand on revolutionary violence. From Great Karl Marx and Comrade Fredrick Engels to Chairman Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, all have insisted in revolutionary violence as a cardinal issue. They have never seen it as a passive or defensive issue. Any deviations from strategic application of revolutionary violence have always led to opportunist and revisionism. This was the issue in Russian-Chinese Split in ICM. “Soviet” revisionists had preached peaceful transformation toward socialism and Peaceful ways of coming up with imperialism. Those who deny the applicability of “people’s war until communism” are those who fail to understand the violent path in which the people’s war will persist on, until reaching a classless society.

As a conclusion, we have to summarize that: those anti-revisionist forces which oppose Avakianism and Nepalese Revisionism, but fail to take chairman Gonzalo and application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism according to each country’s conditions, are not still having a Maoist perspective. They still are not capable of uphold, defending and applying Maoism.

The Avakianists are Post-Maoists.

Prachanda Path revisionism has no connection with ICM and international Maoism

But, those forces who compare prachanda path with Gonzalo thought (for example: Communist (Maoist) party of Afghanistan has frequently done such a comparision), are profoundly in a wrong direction. They present a lack of understanding of what a Thought is. They still fail to know what a guiding thought contributes to MLM.

C (M) PA, in one of its recent documents, in reply to the RCP-USA, reaffirms what this party had already evaluated of the Gonzalo Thought, as a deviation from MLM. This party writes:

“It is thus we consider it {the “New Synthesis” of Bob Avakian} a deep and wide deviationist line with a depth and breadth that is deeper and wider than the deviationist line of the Communist Party of Peru that emerged under the label of “Gonzalo Thought”; it is much deeper and wider than the deviationist line of the Communist Party of Nepal that named itself “Prachanda Path”.

We take stand in favor of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is chairman Gonzalo who has formulated it. Those forces who adopt part of chairman Gonzalo’s Synthesis, are adopting part of Maoism! Maoism is an integrated whole. It is revisionism who takes part of Maoism and reject the other part. To be a genuine Maoist, we must adopt Maoism in its wholesome, in its integrity.

So, for those forces who claim being anti-revisionist and are rejecting Avakianism and Prachandism, we declare that: they must adopt Marxism-Leninism-Maoist according to its genius and real form, and that is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, formulated by Chairman Gonzalo.

The genuine Maoists have reaffirmed themselves in MLM principally Maoism, and have always defended chairman Gonzalo’s contributions to international ideology of the proletariat. They have seen the question of Guiding Thought, as a Maoist contribution. It was Chairman Mao himself who raised the question of Thought. Then it was chairman Gonzalo who revived this issue, and expanded its concept. PBSP(Maoist Unity Group)/Bangladesh, as a genuine Maoist force, has done its best in order to introduce Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism in Bangladesh. Today, CPMLM Bangladesh adheres the same genius revolutionary Tradition. CPMLM France is another communist force, which stands at forefront of genuine Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and has many great contributions in order to introduce Gonzalo’ teachings and PCP’s historical importance, within and outside France. PCP itself still is continuing to defend MLM internationally. Our Organization is one of the committed forces which upholds, defends and applies Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism. We uphold Gonzalo Thought as the creative application of MLM in Peruvian reality, and besides, we believe that: Gonzalo Thought has much to offer for world Communist Movement internationally. But, it is a Guiding thought for Peruvian Revolution, and our international ideology is: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism synthesized by Chairman Gonzalo. To defend from historical contributions of chairman Gonzalo is to defend Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. We uphold the thesis of Great Leadership, which rises from A Guiding Thought. It is Guiding Thought which conducts a people’s war. Great Leadership and Militarized Communist Parties of a new type are two Maoist theses, which have come from the Context of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Revolutionary Yenan, before Chinese Revolution, and the Communist Party of China, under leadership of Chairman Mao, were prototypes of What Chairman Gonzalo Called as Militarized Communist Party and a militarized society representing what chairman Mao called a sea of armed masses fighting for communism.

Teachings of Comrade Charu Mazumdar in India, is an embryonic form of Guiding Thought for indian Revolution, and Comrade Siraj Sikder’s contributions to Bangladesh revolution, is a revolutionary path, which shows the way how a genius guiding thought generates from universal truth of MLM. Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkya in Turkey has the same authority in generating a guiding thought for revolution in Turkey. We reaffirm ourselves in what CPMLM France calls a guiding thought generated for German Communists, by Comrade, Ulrike Meinhouf.

In our beloved country, Afghanistan, comrade Akram Yari’s red line, is the basis for a guiding thought, which is still to be in generation and will guide the whole process of revolution, and will be the guarantee of triumph till reaching communism.

We consider the GPCR a form of People’s war, which is applicable for a socialist society, in order to prevent restoration of capitalist order.

For a semi-feudal and semi-colony, the alliance of four revolutionary classes is the basis for a united front, waging a Protracted People’s War, but for a socialist country, the form of people’s war, and the orientation of the classes differs, and then, a struggle between restoration and counter-restoration occurs. So, it is crucial to understand the forms People’s War takes, in different stages of revolution. Failing to understand this truth, leads toward denial of waging people’s war until communism. When Chairman Gonzalo spoke about waging people’s war during dictatorship of the proletariat, he meant the GPCR. For chairman Gonzalo, it is people’s war that presents as Cultural Revolution in a socialist society. Those forces who, in one side, admire GPCR, but in other hand, fail to consider this revolution as a people’s war, they also fail to adopt the strategy of people’s war until communism. Indeed, when Chairman Mao spoke about continuation of the revolution under dictatorship of the proletariat, he also had observed this continuation as a revolutionary war, the people’s war. But, for centrists, People’s war has nothing to offer after a new democratic, or at best, after the triumph of proletarian revolution. For genuine Maoists, People’s war during the counter-restoration efforts of the proletariat, under the leadership of the vanguard Communist Party, takes the form of Cultural Revolution. This is our observation, which is concluded from the active application of revolutionary violence during Cultural Revolution. The revolutionary violence applied by the proletariat during the GPCR, shows that this revolution is the most violent one, which the proletariat wages, and wages it as a people’s war for preventing the restoration of the old order, and for reaching the communism.